Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Armand more than a good film, it is a splendid puzzle. not only for cast or themes. but for the science to not be a melodrama like many others. a film who seduce different genre of public. and a high level of performance. sure, it is not out of recipes of genre. but it seems be different and that is the good part. in same measure, it use in wise manner the images,music and symbols and recreate the atmosphere of a lovely classic story. but the cast makes the difference. this fact is so clear. and not for acting itself but for the choice of director for one or other. so, the duty of each is to be himself. and the show is running.

dougdoepke Super-slick soap, with an all-star cast cavorting in luxurious settings. Looks like dad Hadley's (Keith) a regular guy, even with oodles of money. But get a load of his two kids. Kyle (Stack) views life's parade through an alcoholic haze, while daughter Marylee (Malone), shall we say, looks to hook up with anything in pants. Clearly, money hasn't done either any good. But the main problem appears to lie in childhood and growing up with the poor, but super- competent Mitch (Hudson), who now has a good job with Dad and his oil company. As a result, Kyle feels inferior despite his money, while Marylee fills her time with Mitch-substitutes since the original spurns her and her money. So the lap of luxury really only makes things worse for this second generation of wealth.This was cutting-edge stuff for the '50's with its hints of nymphomania, homosexuality, and infertility, especially with the gorgeous settings that includes the cast principals. Couple that with the top-ten title song, and the movie was a huge hit. It's also well performed with the possible exception of Malone, Oscar or not. Too me, she's a bit over-the-top, while her character as written is pretty much a predictable one-note. And whose idea, I wonder, was the sexy solo dance that appears to end in orgasmic delight at the same time Dad takes a fatal tumble. I've never been sure what to think of that parallel.Anyway, this is '50's movie-making at its slickest and most daring, with a decidedly dim view of the decade's dreams of luxurious living, earned or otherwise.

vincentlynch-moonoi Once again, I must dissent. I think this film reeks.Roger Ebert described it as "a perverse and wickedly funny melodrama...in which shocking behavior is treated with passionate solemnity, while parody burbles beneath." I think he was being very generous.I've always found Robert Stack to be a second-rate actor and just a little creepy. Here he outdid himself -- I found him to be a third-rate actor and really creepy...especially when he was looking directly at Lauren Bacall. Made me shudder. He gets killed off in the movie...it didn't come a minute too soon.I usually find Rock Hudson to be a rather appealing actor, but I didn't find him or his part to be a bit appealing here...perhaps more later in the film. Lauren Bacall, not usually one of my favorites, did about the only really decent acting here, though I have seen her better in a few other films. Dorothy Malone never quite made it to the top ranks either, although in a number of films I found her quite appealing...but not here.And, I have found some films directed by Douglas Sirk to be right up my alley -- especially "Magnificent Obsession", "All That Heaven Allows", and "Imitation of Life" -- but not this one. It took me 3 nights to wade through this, and several times I almost turned it off completely. I should have...my time would have been better spent whittling...and I don't even whittle! It seems that almost everything in this film is overdone. Over-acting. Overly dramatic music. Too much of a bad thing. I recommend you skip it!

bobsgrock Of all of Douglas Sirk's sly and subversive melodramas, Written on the Wind may very well be the one that takes itself the most seriously. This is not to say that Sirk's wicked undertones are not present as they are; rather by this time (1956), he had perfected his ability to balance the false and lavish exterior with the sad, repugnant interior of the characters and the lives they inhabit.What is unique to this film is how intense and emotional the story becomes rather than simple-minded fodder for soap fans. This is due in part to the very strong performances, particularly Robert Stack and Dorothy Malone as Kyle and Marylee Hadley, the filthy-rich but morally empty children of an oil tycoon who traipse about looking for thrills and challenges. Kyle finds one in straight-laced secretary Lucy Moore (Lauren Bacall), whom he eventually marries. Marylee has been attracted to Kyle's best friend Mitch Wayne (the incomparable Rock Hudson) all her life but cannot get past his wall of incredulity. In short, none of these characters are truly happy or satisfied with their situations, even after attempts to correct them. This may be Sirk's most devastating critique of all: everyone, despite their varied backgrounds, remain unfulfilled and unwilling to settle for anything but what they feel is ultimate satisfaction.If nothing else, this film is gorgeous to look at. Russell Metty, Sirk's longtime cinematographer, photographs Hollywood sets better than anyone. Perhaps its the color palate or Sirk's mise en scene; whatever it is it is used brilliantly to reflect the characters (and 1950s America's) vapid soullessness. This, combined with over the top acting and scenarios, would seem to present itself as sheer stupidity and disregarded melodrama. Of course, this being Douglas Sirk, one must attempt to look closer for the signs of that most modern of ideas: that people are strange and life is the most ironic of situations.